Aninath Gorakh Pawar vs Chairman and Managing Director, R.R.B. Energy Ltd.Beed and 2 others Advocate - S.V.Dankh — 1700515/2015

Case under Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 Section 28. Status: Cross. Next hearing: 16th April 2026.

COMPLAINT ULP

CNR: MHIC200006262015

Cross

Next Hearing

16th April 2026

Filing Number

1701368/2015

Filing Date

15-12-2015

Registration No

1700515/2015

Registration Date

15-12-2015

Court

Industrial Court, Aurangabad

Judge

1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT, AURANGABAD.

Acts & Sections

Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act 1971 Section 28

Petitioner(s)

Aninath Gorakh Pawar

Adv. P.M.Shinde

Respondent(s)

Chairman and Managing Director, R.R.B. Energy Ltd.Beed and 2 others Advocate - S.V.Dankh

Hearing History

Judge: 1-MEMBER, INDUSTRIAL COURT, AURANGABAD.

23-03-2026

Cross

06-03-2026

Cross

17-02-2026

Cross

09-02-2026

Cross

31-01-2026

Cross

Interim Orders

06-03-2026
Copy of Order Below Exhibit

Summary: The Industrial Court at Aurangabad allowed the respondent's (RRB Energy Ltd.) application to amend its written statement in a ULP complaint filed by employee Ajinath Gorakh Pawar in 2015 regarding a disputed transfer order. The court granted the amendment to enable proper adjudication, finding that the respondent's subsequent factual changes (site closures and business losses) were material to the case, though it imposed Rs. 3,000 costs on the respondent and required submission of the amended statement within 15 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Industrial Court at Aurangabad allowed the respondent's (RRB Energy Ltd.) application to amend its written statement in a ULP complaint filed by employee Ajinath Gorakh Pawar in 2015 regarding a disputed transfer order. The court granted the amendment to enable proper adjudication, finding that the respondent's subsequent factual changes (site closures and business losses) were material to the case, though it imposed Rs. 3,000 costs on the respondent and required submission of the amended statement within 15 days. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Browse Related Cases

More from this court

Industrial Court, Aurangabad All courts →

Explore other courts

Search Another Case